Talk:Eric Joyce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article is pretty much a hatchet-job. Lots of criticisms, not much balance. He may be a nasty charecter, but this article makes me suspect that it has been written or heavily edited by his oponents. I have taken a few bits out while copyediting, but do not know enough about him to rectify this article. Anyone else? Ground Zero | t 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ground Zero Furthermore, some of the facts here are simply and unpardonably, inaccurate - casting doubt on both the veracity and integrity of Wikipedia. For example, the mention of Rose Mckenna rejecting EJ is utterly wrong . She in fact rejected someone else. And that is only for starters. On the point made above by Ground Zero, i would also have to agree. I find no place whasoever in any biography with even a shred of integrity for the derisory tone adopted by the writer/s of this article. I have not re-written nor edited the piece, for even where I could, I find the whole article too specious to merit revision. It needs complete re-write - and I do hope that this is acknowledged and recitified by whoever it is who is responsible for such absolutely as soon as possible, for, from my point of view, this calls into question the intergrity of the entire encyclopedia. signed, DSP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.56.102.104 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 October 2006.

Dont be so ridiculous DSP. You are overreacting and being far too dramatic. "brings into question the integrity of the entire encyclopedia" - what an overreaction. I have watched this article evolve over a number of years and it is not greatly different now from what it was when it was first written, perhaps you should read into the history of the article before you make completely spurious and ridiculous comments. The article simply states what a lot of his constituents feel, and know. it seems to me that all allegations made in this article are backed up and referenced. i would suggest that DSP is either Mr Joyce himself or a close friend/supporter. well wake up and smell the coffee my friend, this man is a rotten MP and this well founded, well written and completely truthful article simply highlights the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.34.212 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 October 2006.

I have no political opinions either way, but this article is thoroughly POV in tone. It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to "highlight" the perceived "feelings" of constituents. --YFB ¿ 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)\\

I have just commented out several mentions of Joyce's expenses claims (one will do), and several unsourced critical paragraphs: see diff]. Whilst those criticisms may be accurate, they don't belong here unless sourced, and even if sourced they shoud be included only as part of a balanced assessment. Stashing up referenced criticisms without attempting to provide a balanced assessment of his career is just a hatchet job, as others have said. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)